"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

The issue is not just mass shootings. I would surmise that a majority of deaths due to fire arms are in non gun free zones. Also, one would tend to think that mass shootings tend to happen at schools and places of previous occupations due to that is where the shooters developed grievances. In other words it is just coincidental versus any causation.

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

Well... glad that's settled.

Oh, but if the facts are so clearly on the side of more guns = less crime, then why is the CDC continually discouraged from investigating the issue further?

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

The issue is not just mass shootings. I would surmise that a majority of deaths due to fire arms are in non gun free zones. Also, one would tend to think that mass shootings tend to happen at schools and places of previous occupations due to that is where the shooters developed grievances. In other words it is just coincidental versus any causation.

While that may be true for the history of mass shootings of those who perceive themselves as aggrieved,, they are more and more becoming targeted locations where the greatest number of murders is the highest consideration, i.e. terrorist incidents. We are all aware of the terrorist theater shooter in Colorado who passed by a more convenient theater which allowed firearm carry to commit his murders inside the theater posted as a gun free zone.

I can also tell you as a police officer who has to deal with shooting incidents, accidental shootings by legal firearms are very rare compared to intentional homicides by firearm. Some of those victims may have survived had the murderer not been the only armed person in the encounter.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

If you could craft a law that kept guns out of the hands of deranged murderers, would you support it?

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

If you could craft a law that kept guns out of the hands of deranged murderers, would you support it?

Basically equivalent to asking if I could create a four-sided triangle would I do it. Last I checked deranged murderers didn't care much about the law.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

If you could craft a law that kept guns out of the hands of deranged murderers, would you support it?

But I'll bite...and sure, the law would be that deranged murderers be given the death penalty asap. Last I checked the recidivism rate for those given the death penalty is pretty close to zero.

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

The issue is not just mass shootings. I would surmise that a majority of deaths due to fire arms are in non gun free zones. Also, one would tend to think that mass shootings tend to happen at schools and places of previous occupations due to that is where the shooters developed grievances. In other words it is just coincidental versus any causation.

Of course the gun free zone didn't cause anyone to commit a mass shooting. No more than the gun did.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

You are completely wrong. History has shown gun control works. Just look to Stalin and Mao.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

You are completely wrong. History has shown gun control works. Just look to Stalin and Mao.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

If you could craft a law that kept guns out of the hands of deranged murderers, would you support it?

Basically equivalent to asking if I could create a four-sided triangle would I do it. Last I checked deranged murderers didn't care much about the law.

No.

Lets not boil things down to "deranged murderers" and "not deranged murderers". For a moment.

Lets look at the types of murders we actually see.

You have crime of passion; someone snaps because of something, lets say cheating wife, abuse, etc; more understandable; but it's a snap thing. These are the types of murders that will likely happen everywhere, regardless of what laws you do or don't have for guns; and so this type of thing is still going to happen.

Then you have spree or at least disaffected killers, or disaffected people with a particular type of mental illness; there is more chance of identifying these people, or people at risk with the right framework. If these people didn't have access to guns, then their ability to kill will be much lower; while you can kill someone with a baseball bat, or a knife, it's going to be much harder, and more likely to injure than a gun; and more likely for people to incapacitate the person.

Then, obviously, you have criminals, gang members, and people who are using the guns to commit crimes, intimidate, or with the intention of committing murders. These people tend to get guns via a variety of means, but primarily from off-the-book private sales.

So, you can do something about at least some of the gun crime being committed, but not necessarily all.

But lets start by actually allowing the CDC to fund research into gun deaths. I would have thought that should be an uncontroversial no-brainer. Right?

Secondly, one of the main barriers is the registry prohibition in FOPA. Want to prevent guns getting to criminals? Make them traceable.

Then, for example, lets say we improved mental health, and the detection rates for interventions; including education as to general warning signs etc; combine that with things like the terrorist watch list, (with a recourse to appeal, obviously), wait periods, and background checks, and you can likely reduce the pool of people who don't have guns and shouldn't have guns.

For criminals getting guns, one way could be to require all gun sales, public and private to be registered (and subject to background checks), and require guns you do own, to be re-registered every year; with a fine if you haven't reported a gun as stolen within 1 month (with a police report), or if you can't find the gun. Boost the requirements for security if you hold more than a certain number of guns, requiring more secure locations for large caches or quantities of guns to be held.

Through the info and data, and up-to-date police databases, you should be able to detect various patterns of sellers; which combined with fines, and better detection that could very well result, together with continued confiscation of illegal weapons already on the street, if successful, would reduce the weapons filtering in for crime.

Now, with this; people who need guns will be able to buy them, and other laws (such as CCW) can likely remain exactly the same as they are now. It's not affecting your right to bear arms, if your a lawful and competent gun owner; or even just a victim of a robbery you're unlikely to be penalized unless you are negligent.

But what it does do, is it is more restrictive in terms of background checks across the board; not just people who buy weapons for a gun shop; the way guns get into the hands of criminals is through unregulated sales mainly, and theft less so. If that loops is closed both by requiring all sales to require the background check, and by introducing a mechanism by which people can't simply sell stuff anyway (hence the re-registration once per year). That flow can be pinched off to some extent.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

You are completely wrong. History has shown gun control works. Just look to Stalin and Mao.

In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was

-civilians with guns don't stop dictators

Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922.

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%.could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have?

I mentioned Stalin and Mao - and this article does not contend that there was effective gun control with Stalin and Mao, so I don't see what your point is (unless you are making a rather daft point, but, I'll let you expand on it first)

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

But but but but, making more laws and regulations will totally work because the criminals we want to target are going to follow them!

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was

-civilians with guns don't stop dictators

Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922.

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%.could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have?

You'll have to show where the article claims that Jews had as easy access to guns as other citizens to make sense in your summation and relevancy of your link.

I mentioned Stalin and Mao - and this article does not contend that there was effective gun control with Stalin and Mao, so I don't see what your point is (unless you are making a rather daft point, but, I'll let you expand on it first)

You may first have to clarify the point behind your clumsy attempt at irony earlier for me to effectively do that.

"I don"t have faith in faith
I don"t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that"s faith enough for me"
-Rush

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

Are we correlating major cities to higher gun crime? If so, why do you think that would be the case?

Chicago, the city all gun lovers love pointing to, has a population of about 9 million. The entire state of Illinois has a population of only 12.5m

Right, I understand the logic. But I don't understand the point trying to be made. So democratic run cities with strict gun laws greatly effect the number of gun violence incidents in a state? Well I can't argue with that fact.

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

"If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state."

If one looks at the data, states with the strictest gun laws (California, New York, Illinois) have by far the highest number of gun murder rates. States like New Hampshire and Vermont, which have virtually zero gun laws consequently have the lowest.

Not even a good comparison due to the lack of major cities in NH and VT. Murder rates using a gun per 100,000 are less in CA than most South Eastern states.

"The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The terror attack in Orlando, FL and the shooting that murdered singer Christina Grimmie in June also took place in gun-free zones. The reason is obvious: deranged murderers want to be in a position to murder as many as possible, so they target areas where they're least likely to find armed resistance, which happen to be gun-free zones."

Well... glad that's settled.

Oh, but if the facts are so clearly on the side of more guns = less crime, then why is the CDC continually discouraged from investigating the issue further?